Was Josephus quoting Revelation 16?

Ok so the other day I went to audible.com and purchased Josephus, "Wars of the Jews." Partially because I didn't really want to take the time to wade through William Whistons dry read of a book...But also because my jobs allow for me to have headphones in.

Let me tell you something...If you as a preterist haven't listened to or read, "The Wars of the Jews," in total...you have missed the boat.

It is like listening to a play by play commentary of the Apocalypse. And it was only like 20 bucks for the whole thing if you follow the links from Amazon.com. Sale pricing.

Anyhow...I could go on for hours. But let me get to the part that really kinda freaked me out.

1. Revelation 16:18, “And there were noises and THUNDERINGS and LIGHTNINGS; and there was a great EARTHQUAKE, such a mighty and great earthquake as had not occurred since men were on the earth.”

Josephus, “Wars of the Jews.” Book 4 Chapter 4 paragraph 5

“for there broke out a prodigious storm in the night, with the utmost violence, and very strong winds, with the largest showers of rain, with continued LIGHTNINGS, terrible THUNDERINGS, and amazing concussions and bellowings of the earth, that was in an EARTHQUAKE. These things were a manifest indication that some destruction was coming upon men, when the system of the world was put into this disorder; and any one would guess that these wonders foreshowed some grand calamities that were coming”

2. Revelation 16:19 Now the great city(Rev. 11:8) was DIVIDED INTO THREE PARTS, and the cities of the nations fell. And great Babylon was REMEMBERED BEFORE GOD, to give her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath.”

Josephus “Wars of the Jews” Book 5 Chapter 1 Paragraph 1

“it so happened that the sedition at JERUSALEM was revived, and PARTED INTO THREE FACTIONS, and that one faction fought against the other; which partition in such evil cases may be said to be a good thing, and the EFFECT OF DIVINE JUSTICE.”

3. Revelation 16:21 “And great hail from heaven fell upon men, each hailstone about the WEIGHT OF A TALENT.”

Josephus, “Wars of the Jews.” Book 5 Chapter 6 Paragraph 3

“Now the stones that were cast were of the WEIGHT OF A TALENT, and were carried two furlongs and further. The blow they gave was no way to be sustained, not only by those that stood first in the way, but by those that were beyond them for a great space. As for the Jews, they at first watched the coming of the stone, for it was of A WHITE COLOR, and could therefore not only be perceived by the great noise it made, but could be seen also before it came by its brightness;”


Long story short...It seems to me that he was either somehow inspired to record these things in this manner...Or he had read Revelation and saw what was happening as a fulfillment of it.

This sure could add weight to the early date.

Any thoughts???

P.S. Beyond Creation Science covers a lot of this too. <---Shameless plug!!!

Pmike

Tender of Sheep???

Ok...So I'm sitting in front of my computer listening to Bob Bennett and Roby Dukes in a worship service while reading something by Brian Simmons on early Genesis. And it struck me as odd reading about Cain being a tiller of the ground and Abel being a tender of sheep. That is...If Adam and Eve were the first two people on good ole' terra firma then they must have been pretty smart to come up with the idea that sheep would need to be tended.

Ok...I'm not going to by any means pretend to hide the fact that I do not think that Adam and Eve were the first two people on Earth. So to my point.

It just seems to me that the idea of tending sheep for all of the obvious benefits that one could attain from such actions would be something that would simply happen with a snap of the finger. I guess it just sounds to me as something that would be a career kind of choice. That is that it was a practice that would have been set in place over generations. Considering the fundi view that before the flood everyone were vegitarians. Seriously, from a story standpoint, what would be the point of tending sheep if Adam and Eve were the first man and woman and Cain and Abel were the first two descendants.

Is it just me or would tending sheep be something that is done for financial gain???

Seriously...what would be the point of opening up a full service QuickyMart on a desert island with Mom, Dad and your brother?

I can understand Cain's actions as a ground tiller as being something that is necessary for survival...But tending sheep in Iraq? Not like it would have been so cold there that Bro, Mom and Dad need sheep lined leather jackets while they are eating their lamb kabob's. Remember the earth would have been covered by that misty layer that kept things nice and tropical. Hence the fundi long life spans.

Again..seriously...even if Adam and Eve were pumping out babies like rabbits before and after Cain and Abel that weren't specifically spoken of...and how many would it have taken to make a need for one to make a business out of tending sheep?

And then there is that whole thing with Cain after he slew Abel..."I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond on the earth, and it will happen that anyone who finds me will kill me.”

I have a hard time with swallowing that this is simply talking about brothers, sisters, nieces and nephews.

Enough of my rant...ANY THOUGHTS???

First Adam...Last Adam

Adam...Hebrew = Man

Jesus = The last Adam

Pmike is alive and well 2000 years later.

So if Jesus was the last Adam and I am typing this post today then Jesus was not "the last adam" literally...or naturally speaking.

That being the case can we assume...or make the argument that the Adam in Genesis 2-3 was not the first literal man on Earth?

Basically, I just want to know what everyone thinks on the subject.

Because...Heavens and Earth as a whole through out the Bible...to me...seems to lean a lot more along the lines of covenant rather than physical creation.

GLOVES OFF...NO HOLDS BARRED...ESPECIALLY YOU MR. SAM FROST!!!

Ezekiel 28...Adam or Satan???

I've always been taught that this text was speaking of Satan. I guess I never really questioned it until recently.

If the first ten verses of chapter 28 are talking about the same person as 11-19 then it wouldn't seem too outlandish to think that verses 12-19 are talking about Adam and not Satan.

vs. 2 “ Because your heart is lifted up, And you say, ‘I am a god, I sit in the seat of gods, In the midst of the seas,’ Yet you are a man, and not a god, Though you set your heart as the heart of a god..."

Sounds like a possible connection to Genesis 3:22-23 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken.


Ezekiel 28:16 "Therefore I cast you as a profane thing out of the mountain of God...I cast you to the ground"

Genesis 3:23-24 "Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

Both the anointed cherub and Adam were cast out of the garden.

Also notice the covering that was given to the anointed cherub in Ezekiel 28. And then the contrast of Adams covering of fig leaves.

Is this possibly a picture of, or a further explanation of Adam having removed the covering that God made him for a covering made by "his own hands?"

So anyhow...If anyone has any good arguments as to why I should view Ezekiel 28 as speaking of Satan, I am more than willing to listen.

Thanks and Merry Christmasj

Pmike

Does eschatology reeaaalllyyy matter???

"I remember as a child laying awake at night, terrified that I was going to "get left behind" for some childish bad thing I'd done or thought or some mistake I'd done. That was around age 8-12 and I would continue to have similar fear through my teenage years. I remember being terrified around year 2000 and always worried about this..."antichrist" who was going to somehow do all these terrible things to people who weren't "born again" AND had not lost their salvation/committed some sin. I'd lay awake at night and be terrified during the day asking over and over "what if I commit a sin, and don't have time to confess and ask God forgiveness and repent and get...left behind?!" "what if I'm in some sin that I don't even recognize and I get......left behind?" "what if I'm watching something on TV that's somehow a "sin" and Jesus returns and I get......left behind?" "what if I commit the unpardonable sin and get....left behind?"

Author-Matthew Murray-

DOES ESCHATOLOGY REALLY MATTER?

"End times? I so badly wanted to understand what it all meant...so I looked into it as a teenager and found out that there are at least 7 different views of "the end times" and....they all had....the infallible bible to support their contradictory beliefs of the "end times."

Author-Matthew Murray-

DOES ESCHATOLOGY REALLY MATTER?

Does Truth really matter? Could the truth have really made a difference in the life of Matthew Murray?

http://www.csindy.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A22482

Could it have made a difference in the life of Ricky Rodriquez?

http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Ricky_Rodriguez_video

AND SO I ASK YOU ONCE AGAIN, DOES ESCHATOLOGY...DOES THE TRUTH REALLY MATTER???

Maybe someone should ask the wounded father of Stephanie and Rachael Works, ages 18 and 16.

DOES TRUTH REALLY MATTER?

Could a proper understanding of the Bible have made a difference?

God...Or Satan???

Sooooo...Who moved David to number the tribes?

1 Chronicles 21:1 Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel. (NKJV)

2 Samuel 24:1 Again the anger of the LORD was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah." (NKJV)

Anybody wanna touch these parallel passages?

I know what I think but would love to hear what others think.

Antichrist: The Biblical View

Found this article and thought yall might like it. This author pointed out some things that I had never really thought about before regarding anti-christ. Thought it might be a good review for all of you smarty pants out there.

Well worth the short read.

Antichrist: The Biblical View

P-mike

Where do we go next...

I've been participating in a discussion in another place on this site: Looking to Revelation: Written before or after 70 A.D.?

But for whatever reason it seems like there is some kind of communication disconnect happening. So what I want to do is ask EVERYONE to help me figure this one out. Or develop the idea further. This is after a number of posts...but should be a good place to start.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

Clearly the Bible teaches a future eschaton from the perspective of when it was written. The obvious question to the new reader might be, "Are these things still future to us, or have they already taken place?"

You said:

the same can be said with other camps that have come along, like the futurist camp. Though they grew large in numbers,did this make their doctrine correct? No you yourself has answered that. You and many others at one time held to those doctrines, but now reject them.


And like you said we came to this view because of our studies. My point in this whole thing is that people DON'T come to the futurist camp from the preterist camp. People get saved on Sunday morning and they come back to their first Bible study that same night and learn about the rapture.

People are introduced to the futurist camp with a clean slate. They go from knowing NOTHING to futurism. The trend seems to go like this: Agnostic---> PreMil Futurist---> Amil Futurist---> PostMil Futurist---> Partial Pret---> Preterist.

And I agree with you that people come to preterism because of their studies. There is an apparent progression though that is a result of study. And unless someone comes in and tells a new believer something different they all tend to start off as a futurist.

So then why do people end up in other camps other than preterist. I would suggest it is because they just don't care to go any further in their studies, or some people land on a conclusion and are happy there, or they have another pet doctrine that they like better than eschatology that is dependent on a certain view of eschatology.

Soooo...Presupposing my observation is correct about the progression of peoples views on eschatology...My question to you is that if preterism is not correct...What is the next step?

Merry Christmas

I know that I haven't been around much lately...but that's what working 70 hours a week will do to you. Anyhow...Warm wishes to all of you who have helped me better understand and believe what I do.

An Unfortunate Similarity!

pederast
One entry found for pederast.
Main Entry: ped·er·ast
Pronunciation: 'pe-d&-"rast
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek paiderastEs, literally, lover of boys, from paid- ped- + erastEs lover, from erasthai to love -- more at EROS
: one who practices anal intercourse especially with a boy
- ped·er·as·tic /"pe-d&-'ras-tik/ adjective
- ped·er·as·ty /'pe-d&-"ras-tE/ noun

An English gentleman that is Anglican, that I work with pointed this out to me one night when having a discussion about N.T. Wright.

1st Century Millenium...

This was a conversation between a friend and myself. At least most of it. I trimmed it down a little for size. I learned alot of things through this interaction and wanted to share it with yall.

EMAIL #1

Consider some specific attributes of the 1000 years.

1. Jesus sitting on Davids throne.
2. Those who take part of the 1st resurrection reign with Christ.
3. Thrones, and judgement committed to them(the saints).

Answer 1: Peter says in Acts 2:30 that when Jesus ascended that he was raised up to sit on Davids throne.

Answer 2: Rev 1:6 "He has made us kings and priests." Also see 1 Peter 2:9.

Answer 3: Matt 19:28 So Jesus said to them, "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

The word regeneration in the greek means rebirth(born again).

Consider Eph 2:4-6 "But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,"

Hope that this helps define the perameters of the millenium in my head.

EMAIL #2

Ok...I think I see where there may be some confusion. Lets define a few things.

1. Rev 20:4-5a is a parenthetical statement to Rev 20:1-3

2. Rev 20:5b calls that period of time "the first resurrection."

3. Paul makes it very clear in 1 Cor 15 that there was a "resurrection" that was taking place in his day.

He explains it further in Eph 2 "And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins...when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus

This is clearly not speaking of bodies coming out of the ground. Nevertheless it was the first resurrection. Rev 20:6 Blessed is he who has part in the first resurrection...they shall be priests of God and of Christ and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

It can't get much clearer when the millenium was. The Bible answers itself.

JAVIER ASKED

So Paul and those he was addressing were in the millennium in which Satan was bound in the abyss? Does that make sense, because I am confused on how the history of this time frame would indicate that Satan was bound (gross persecution) after which Satan Hades and Death were thrown into the Lake of Fire, so currently Satan and his minions and all those who organized to war against Jesus and those reign with him at that time (according to Mike Paul and those he was addressing) are already cast into the Lake of Fire?

EMAIL #3

Here is your answer so pay CLOSE ATTENTION.

Matt 12:22-30 Then one was brought to Him who was demon-possessed, blind and mute; and He healed him, so that the blind and mute man both spoke and saw. And all the multitudes were amazed and said, "Could this be the Son of David?" Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, "This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons." But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges.(<---Remember Matt 19:28; Eph 2:4-6) But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.

Jesus said that one cannot cast out demons unless "the strong man(Satan) is bound."

Satan was Bound...BOUND...BOUND

JAVIER ASKED

So the millennium Rev 20 was during the life of Jesus Christ alone up until 70AD, during which we reigned with him, though towards the end of this millennium Satan was released organized a war and shortly thereafter he, Hades and Death were thrown into the Lake of Fire. Now we are in the New heavens and New Land.

MY FINAL RESPONSE

I couldn't have said it better myself. Of course you must understand that the New Jerusalem is the "Heavenly Jerusalem" that Paul spoke of in Gal 4. The same city that the author of Hebrews said was the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God. It was not a physical country but a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them.(Heb 11) Heb 13 also says "For here we have no continuing city(here), but we seek the one to come."

Hebrews really helps clear up the nature of what was about to come.

-----------------------------

Thats it...Any feedback would be great...Thanks

Mike

Email to a futurist friend.

In the Olivet discourse(Matt 24, Mark 13, Luke 21), one of the first things that Jesus does is warn Peter, James, John, and Andrew about false christs, false prophets, and deceivers. Matter of fact He said to stay away from them. What was it that he said they would do?

1. Show great signs and wonders to deceive.
2. Say that the end has drawn near prematurally.

So...we can see all throughout the New Testament that every author from Romans to Revelation spoke of the end being something that was "at hand" or "near."

Matter of fact...All four of those that Jesus was directly speaking to on the mount of olives were told that when they saw "all these things." What things you might say. The things from Matt 24:4 to Matt 24:32 which include everything up to and the coming of the Son of Man. Jesus said to these four, "When you see all these things, know that He is near--at the doors!"

He did later on say that no on knows the day or the hour, but he did give them signs so that they could discern the times. Then he put a cap on it. He said, "This generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place."

NOW HERE IS THE BIG QUESTION: If the events spoken of in the Olivet discourse are still yet future to us...What does that make Peter, James, John and Paul?

IT MAKES THEM DECEIVERS AND FALSE PROPHETS AND WE ARE NOT TO FOLLOW THEM.

If this can somehow be refuted I am more than willing to listen.

Infant Baptism?

This was my response in the article that was posted the other day. I really, really would like to know what y'all think. Mainly about my reasoning. Thanks guys.

--------------------------------------

Here's a thought.

Baptism is the symbol of the new covenant.

Circumcision is the symbol of the old covenant.

Circumsicion was done while the old covenant was still in effect(Timothy).

Shouldn't the sign of the new covenant still be done during/while the new covenant is still in effect(everlasting).

Come to think of it. The sign of the old covenant was done to infants born into a covenant family.

Is there any reason to think that the sign of the new covenant shouldn't also be done to children(The household's of Lydia and Stephanos).

Hmmmm...I always wondered about the dedication and adult baptism thingy. It just never made sense to me. At least not scripturally.

Any thoughts would be great. Thanks

Who is the great commission for?<REVISION 2>

Ok here's another something to think about. And I really would like everyones thoughts on this.

Jesus said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."(Matt 15:24)

Jesus said, "Do not go into the way of the gentiles, and do not enter a city of the samaritans, But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."(Matt 10:5)

Paul said, "Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a minister to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers,"(Romans 15:8)

The author of Hebrews writes, "And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant(old covenant) that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance."

Ezekiel and Jeremiah both state that the new covenant was for the house of Israel and the house of Judah. And if Jesus was this new covenant(Isaiah 49:8-9) that was being offered...Was the great commission then limited to those of the diaspora. Those nations(ethnos) that make up the house of Israel and the house of Judah. (Remember that Genesis 48 says that the sons of Joseph will become a multitude of nations)

So was the commission to go out to the nations and the judgment that was to come upon the nations supposed to understood as limited to those to whome the covenants were given? Think about it if it was to be for all people Israel or not then why did it take them sooooo many years to understand that commission as being universal?

Acts 11:19 says, "Now those who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to no one but the Jews only"

also

Acts 10:36,37 "The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all— 37 that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached:"

I could go on with verse after verse including Peter in his writings addressing the "The pilgrims of the diaspora."

ADDENDUM

From Kevin A. Beck's: Peter's Pilgrims

Acts 13-14 records the missionary travels of Paul and Barnabas who were sent out by the Antioch church. (Barnabas, a Levite, was originally from the Jerusalem church, Acts 11:22). These men followed the example of Peter preaching to “Men of Israel, and you who fear God,” to the “sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God” (Acts 13:16, 26). Additionally, like Peter, they rooted their message in “the voices of the Prophets” (13:27). This trip established eschatological communities consisting of both Jews and Gentiles (14:1) in modern-day central Turkey. These provinces were adjacent to the communities Peter wrote.

In other words...the message was going out to those of Israel...of the dispersion. And if they picked up some non-Israel believers on the way...then great.

So I guess the ultimate question would be, "Why did those that initially received the great commission for the most part limit it to their own countrymen." And do we still need to preach that message today exactly like they did? Personally...I'd say no it is a different message now...post parousia and all.

:) Mike

The Next Reformation

Revelation 1:19 (YLT) Write the things that thou hast seen, and the things that are, and the things that are about to come after these things;

We as preterists agree that it is the timing of the events that define the nature of them. Futurists are just the opposite. They define the nature of the events in such a way that they have to still be future. We say that futurists are naive in there literalism and they say that we over-spiritualize.

We also as preterists fault futurists for looking behind every bush for the anti-christ and to the National Enquirer for the fulfillment of prophecies. And I hate to say it but it seems to me that we are in some sense guilty of the same thing. Except of course in the Bible and other historic documents.

These things were about to take place. What things? Part of them? Most of them? Maybe I'm wrong but...All of them. Whatever the nature of them, they were about to take place. This shouldn't be something that shakes what we believe. It's taken us 2000 years to refine what we believe to this point. It took the printing press some 500+ years ago to open up the peoples eyes to the false teaching that had been going on up until that point. It has taken the internet to begin what I would call "The Next Reformation."

And if we think in any way that we have come to the zenith of the truth...boy are we wrong. I'm sure there are some aspects of scripture that we may not know or understand for another 1000 years. Or maybe even never while in the flesh.

Maybe we need to re-examine what it is we are doing as preterists. Instead of treating preterism like a puzzle that we need to fit pieces into, maybe we need to treat it like an artichoke. Peel away what is not true, eventually exposing the heart(truth).

Mike 8)